MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034813719 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v2n2p105

The Relationship between Personality Traits and Psychological Resilience among the Caribbean Adolescents

2010· article· en· W2034813719 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grace A. Fayombo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgreeablenessConscientiousnessBig Five personality traitsPsychologyHierarchical structure of the Big FiveOpenness to experienceExtraversion and introversionNeuroticismPersonalityBig Five personality traits and cultureFacet (psychology)Psychological resilienceClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This cross-sectional study investigated the relationships between the big five personality traits:(conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, extraversion) and psychologicalresilience among 397 Caribbean secondary school adolescents. Pearson Product Moment Correlation andStepwise Multiple Regressions were conducted to analyse the data. Results revealed statistically significantpositive relationships between the personality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience,extraversion) and psychological resilience, while neuroticism was negatively correlated with psychologicalresilience. The personality traits also jointly contributed 32% (R square = 0.324) of the variance being accountedfor in psychological resilience and this was found to be statistically significant with conscientiousness being thebest predictor while agreeableness, neuroticism and openness to experience were other significant predictors,however, extraversion did not contribute significantly. These results are discussed in the light of healthypersonality beefing up and promoting adolescents’ psychological resilience.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations139
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207